Placing photographs in cafeteria lunch trays requires no special training and incurs minimal costs and labor (in this study, about $3 and 20 minutes per 100 trays), but was associated with an increase in vegetable consumption within the range of those found in more expensive interventions, including those that require multiple classroom sessions with trained instructors or parent involvement.The number of students taking vegetables and the amounts consumed, however, remained low and did not yet meet government recommendations. In addition, these findings were obtained from just 2 days in 1 school, so further research is needed to assess how well the effects generalize to other settings and persist over time.

Basically, what the researchers found was that with elementary school children simply putting decals of carrots and green beans on their trays suggesting that this was the proper place for these foods led to a substantial increase in the number of children who placed these items on their tray. Green beans went from 6.3% to 14.8%, and carrots went from 11.6% to 36.8%. Although green bean consumption per child who took green beans did not increase, carrot consumption per child who took carrots increased significantly. In any case, the total amount of green beans and carrots consumed zoomed as so many more children took the items.

Obviously, not too much can be drawn from one study done in one school, one time. It is very possible that if the decals are done daily, they may become background noise and their impact may dissipate.

Still, it is nice to have researchers studying consumption, not just how much is served. These researchers actually went through the uneaten carrots to weigh them and subtract that from the amount served to calculate consumption.

It is also interesting that such a small intervention could have such a significant impact on consumption. Perhaps changing the decals each day to represent the day’s vegetable could keep interest, and the consumption effect, high. In any case, this study suggests that if we get a salad bar in a school and see a bump in consumption, with other interventions we might be able to make students more likely to take items off the salad bar and more likely to consume them, thus to achieve a second bump in consumption.

The industry now has an organization, the Center for Produce Safety, that funds research to promote safety. What about a similar institute to support research as to how to facilitate increased consumption?

In this industry filled with long hours, it seems that many would be interested in this piece from The New York Times health blog called “Well” that tries to answer a question as to the relationship between work hours and depression. The piece is titled, Really? The Claim: Long Work Hours Can Cause Depression:

Routinely putting in extra hours at the office can put a strain on your social life. But can too much overtime cause depression?

Scientists put the question to the test in a study of more than 2,000 white-collar workers. Previous research hinted at a link between long hours and depressed mood, and the researchers, at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in Helsinki, wanted to examine the issue in depth.

For about five years, they collected data on British civil servants. All of the workers, whose average age at the start was 47, had no mental health problems at the outset. And the researchers adjusted their results to rule out other risk factors, like socioeconomic status, social support, gender and substance use.

The piece also claims another study corroborated some of the findings.

We read both studies and have our doubts that the researchers are studying what they think they are studying.

To take the most obvious points, there may be a post hoc ergo proptor hockind of fallacy here. They see people who work more hours are anxious or depressed and assume causality. It is at least as likely that the causality goes the other way.

For example, if you are having financial problems, you may indeed be anxious or depressed and you may also take all the overtime you can get, but the financial problem is the cause of both the depression and the overtime. Indeed one might be more depressed if one has financial problems and no way of making extra money.

It is also possible that people who have unhappy family lives or few rewarding friendships may elect to work more hours because the alternative is unpleasant. To presume that if they didn’t work so much, they would have loads of great friendships and a happy home is quite a leap.

There is also a question of peer group activity. Is overtime common among the peer group? If so, it might not have any anti-social effect. In other words, all young lawyers and investment bankers on the fast track at top Manhattan firms work crazy hours. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have any friends to be with anyway, as their friends are all working and they live alone in Manhattan apartments, not with any family anyway. This seems likely to produce a very different outcome than one individual atypically for his social set working outrageous hours.

Another issue is where is this extra work being done? If one has to work in the office isolated from friends and family, that is one issue, but what if one does lots of hours on the laptop, iPad, Blackberry and via Skype, and you can do it from the beach house with your family around? Doesn’t that make a difference?

Then there is the question of financial reward. The studies were done on non-US groups, so different laws apply but it is unclear what the financial reward was for the overtime. When Mrs. Pundit worked for the government, it didn’t pay overtime, and although she received “comp time,” the demands of her very responsible position precluded her from taking advantage of much of this time. So, in effect, she worked overtime for free. That might be depressing, but when the Pundit worked at Hunts Point, there were some holidays we paid people triple time to work, and they were mostly pretty happy to get those hours.

Finally there is the question of job fulfillment. We’ve always been blessed with work we enjoyed. Working for the family business, we showed up lots of Saturdays to send telexes around the world and make export sales or import deals. When one came back and turned into a multi-million-dollar deal, we weren’t depressed, we were pumped.

Newt Gingrich has proposed a moon base by 2020, but the real goal is getting to Mars. To a large extent, Newt Gingrich’s plans have been unfairly parodied by both his Republican competitors and the media. The truth is that Mr. Gingrich is on record as looking to make these things happen, not through a statist approach such as NASA, which would require large budgetary commitments, but through methods that involve competition and private sector risk-taking. As Mr. Gingrich has stated:

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance, which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.

However and whenever we are going to get to Mars, one thing is certain: Feeding the crew will be an enormous challenge. For now, at least, the organization doing most of the basic research that will be needed to develop a food system that can take humans to Mars, keep them there for an extended mission and then bring them home is NASA.

We’ve run pieces before about fresh produce and the space program, including, Space: The Final Frontier for Produce? Recently, we learned, though, that plans for Mars include the idea of growing food within the habitat that will be established on Mars and allowing astronauts to cook in a way they could not on other missions. We thought we would find out how NASA thinks this would all work. We asked Pundit Investigator and Special Projects Editor Mira Slott to find out more:

Q: Could you describe the scope and challenges of developing a food program for the first manned mission to Mars?

Maya Cooper, senior research scientist at NASA’s Space Food Systems Laboratory, said of the many challenges, the sheer volume of shelf-stable food required for a Mars mission would be a clear impediment. Could you elaborate?

A: For a Mars mission, it takes six to eight months to get to Mars with the current propulsion system, and astronauts have to stay on the surface 18 months; a total of 2.5 years. We’re talking some 22,000 pounds of food per crew of six! While astronauts are in transit, they will need a packaged food system, maybe processed or produced differently than in the past. Right now, food shelf life is 18 months. With the shuttles, we brought up a few fresh produce items, but produce goes bad quickly, so the astronauts had to eat everything right away.

Q: Vickie Kloeris, Manager of the International Space Station Food System, shared fascinating insight with our readers about the role produce served in the diet of astronauts. [Space: The Final Frontier for Produce?] How will strategies differ for the Mars mission?

A: What we need for the Mars mission is food that will remain shelf-stable for the whole mission length. Then we talk about pre-positioning two years ahead and additional preparation time that amounts to a five-year shelf life, which is a huge difference. Foods like this don’t exist to make crew members happy with the variety and nutritional needs. Likely, there will be no refrigerators or freezers on board, except maybe small refrigeration for leftovers or to cool down a drink, but not to handle massive amounts of food stored for long periods of time.

A: It’s easy to increase shelf life if we decrease temperature. If we can get the food down to 50 degrees Fahrenheit or 40 degrees Fahrenheit, it could increase shelf life in a meaningful way. We can’t put food outside because it’s really cold.

Q: How cold?

A: Down to minus 200 degrees Fahrenheit on the outside; variation is incredible if the sun is out. If you’ve ever seen an ultra, ultra cold product drop on the floor, it shatters, and the packaging to protect the food can’t handle those temperatures.

All this sets the stage for four scenarios to meet the challenge of increasing that shelf life: environment, packaging, processing, and formulation.

First, dealing with the environment, we need to decrease temperature and decrease oxygen. If you take out an old bottle of oil or peanuts, it’s oxidized and smells rancid. The second way is through packaging to protect product from oxygen and moisture.

Q: Hasn’t NASA already developed packaging that solves that problem?

A: We would like to see packaging material not contain foil. Our food in the pouch now is quad laminate; one layer is foil, and foil is a great barrier to oxygen and moisture. But on a longer mission, we want to get rid of trash, and incinerating foil produces ashes. When you incinerate a plastic bag, it goes away completely.

The third way is to change the processing to preserve the food. Right now, our canning process involves heat under pressure. We dry down the food so it doesn’t allow microorganisms to grow, and we irradiate our food. As you can imagine, if you were to overcook food it loses its texture and nutrients. This heat under pressure is really not the best for long-term quality and nutrition.

Microwave-sterilization and pressure-assisted thermal sterilization heat for a very short time and the hit with pressure breaks the cell walls of bacteria. However, you can’t microwave packages in foil. And unfortunately during high pressure, quad laminate starts peeling apart. We need a new package with high barrier properties for humidity and water that is not foil.

Fourth is formulation. Certain ingredients are more stable over time. An acidic ingredient prolongs shelf life, but it may not work if trying to develop a sweet product.

Ideally, we want to integrate these four components, environment, packaging, processing, and formulation, to get a long shelf life.

Q: Isn’t that just part of the challenge? What about other issues related to the sheer volume of food that will be necessary?

A: After tackling the packaged food part, NASA has other restraints. We need to maintain a low mass on foods. It costs money to transport high mass. We want the volume down. We want to keep crew time to a minimum, and the power should be at a minimum from heating up food to recycling water.

When astronauts go on their mission to Mars, the intent is 100 percent recovery of all life support needs -- oxygen, water, power and air. If we use too much water or don’t recycle, that’s an issue.

Q: Could you tell us about the plan to grow crops?

A: While in transit, astronauts could be growing a few salad crops. But because volume will be limited, there won’t be enough produce to make a large salad every day for every person. We anticipate they’ll have a small salad once a week. We’ve flown a test salad machine.

On the surface of Mars, once they’re ready to settle and have habitat and places to grow, they could have controlled environment chambers monitoring temperature, humidity, and lighting, and probably grow hydroponically so they don’t have to bring up dirt, and can grow a range of crops.

Q: What crops are you channeling and why?

A: Our recommendation right now is they grow fresh fruits and vegetables and then bring in bulk wheat berries, peanuts, other dry beans and rice. Those take more time and more energy and have a lot more biomass of leaves and roots as compared to an item like spinach.

There is a separate group doing the crops. On the list, which keeps getting adjusted, are a variety of lettuces, cabbages, spinach, green onions, radishes, bell peppers, tomatoes, carrots, and herbs. There are also strawberries, and mushrooms have been looked at.

Q: Have you explored Vitamin D-enhanced mushrooms, a developing phenomenon in the produce industry? Will you be incorporating any of these technologies into foods to increase their nutritional value?

A: The group’s budget is really, really tiny now, so NASA is not doing any partnerships looking at how to enhance the nutrition, just working now at how to grow the plants.

Q: Do astronauts need additional nutritional supplements, especially with a mission of this duration and nature? If so, do you account for that in your product development and menu planning?

A: You mentioned Vitamin D-enhanced mushrooms. Vitamin D is one supplement they require because they are not getting sunlight. We have certain nutritional requirements but are still trying to learn more in this area, and how to optimize those in the astronauts’ diets. It’s not our team that does that nutritional research, but they tell us and we deliver.

We have a food systems lab, and we do sensory panels. People around the Johnson Space Center provide input on food development.

Q: You mentioned irradiating foods. Are you looking into new food safety protocols?

A: Food safety issues are being examined. For a pick-and-eat process, do the astronauts need to clean the produce beforehand? It’s not outside with dirt and bugs and other stuff accumulating on the produce. But still, humans will be handling the food. We may need protocols on cleaning. Again, we don’t want problems using too much water, or bringing in chemicals that could be detrimental for recycling.

The other thing they may do is use the tomatoes for pasta sauce, turn the carrots into juice or strawberries into a dessert. So, there are many alternatives with the crops. The crew could mill wheat berries for bread, pasta or cakes. Soybeans could be made into texturized vegetable product or tofu. Growing crops opens a lot of different options to create nutritious, tasty foods.

Q: Have you examined cost/benefit scenarios of growing crops in space?

A: Weighing the pros and cons, the extra mass is large, getting all the equipment there, an oven, stove, juicer, food processor, etc., will probably bring a return on investment on the order of 10 years. Now we’re going to prepare and save on package food mass; however we’re going to use more water, power, and more crew time. We’re not making the decision of how much we move to a bioregenerative system growing plants. We give the alternatives.

Q: What timeframes are being forecast for takeoff? Is this more an exploratory period?

A: We’re probably going to Mars in 2025.

Q: That seems quite a long time from now. In the journalism and produce worlds, we’re used to tighter deadlines!

A: We’ve calculated at least 15 years by the time we’re ready.

Q: Are there possibilities for interested produce executives to get involved? What input or types of products can produce companies develop to help NASA?

A: Our crop system team is not doing a lot of work now, but certainly our goal is to find varieties that have large production volume in a short amount of time, and trying to save on resources… if there was a way to reduce the biomass on leaves or grow produce that doesn’t need as much light and nutrients to thrive. On packaging, modified packaging doesn’t get us where we need to be. We are looking for targeted innovation.

Q: What is your role and how did you get involved in this exciting venture?

A: Maya Cooper is one of our senior scientists on the project. I’m the project scientist with the Advanced Food Technology Project, which is under the Human Resource Program. I really decide different tasks and directions we are going in. I have a food science background, and worked in the food industry 16 years. When a job opportunity opened up at NASA, I grabbed it. It’s the best job a food scientist can have.

Q: As your position takes you into new frontiers, what are some of the key factors you’ll be taking into account as you strategize the program moving forward?

A: Mars is a lot further away. We usually have resupply missions going up every three months or so. We won’t have any resupply with the Mars mission. Astronauts bring everything up with them, or it will already be there for them.

The time and distance away from earth is the biggest difference. In other missions, crews could come home in two or three days if there was an emergency. With the Mars mission, if the crew needs to communicate with NASA experts at the Johnson Space Center, there are 20-minute delays each way.

Beyond emergencies, if a crew member has a question on how to produce a food product, there will be a 40-minute delay. On the training side, there will be a lot more autonomy with the crew. We know how humans survive in zero gravity, and the physical changes to bone and muscle loss. What we don’t know is how humans survive in impartial gravity. There are many things we have yet to learn.

The video embedded below provides a lot of additional detail. Interesting that one of the issues NASA learned from the Biosphere 2 project is that farming is very labor-intensive. The plan is to commit one person out of a six-person crew to work on food production.

The other issue is the trade-off on food security. The more food grown locally the less that has to be shipped from Earth – and the freight bill is substantial! So that is a big savings. But what if there is a crop failure? In the US, if we have a crop failure, we pay a little extra freight and bring in food from somewhere else on the planet. If a Mars-based crew was really dependent on farming to eat, a crop failure would mean starvation before we could get food to the crew from Earth.

As missions get longer, providing appealing fresh foods becomes more important. The salad machine on the Space Station is more for motivation than nutrition; lots of efforts will be required to make the food supply sufficient, nutritious and delicious.

Of course, the lack of funding for these efforts to advance in space and the sense that government should be spending its money on urgent needs right here on Earth could both be dealt with if we allowed for proper incentives. We wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard titled Jump-Starting the Space Program: The profit motive would do the trick, to explain how to make this work.

We’ve had a few occasions to mention Jack Welch here at the Pundit. You can see those pieces here, here, here and here. He is the former CEO of General Electric and, with his wife, Suzy Welch, who is the former editor of the Harvard Business Review, the two have launched a new column for Reuters.

It seems that Jack is a big Romney supporter, but Jack and Suzy’s children support Ron Paul. In their first column for Reuters, the Welches suggest that the Republican leadership and the eventual nominee need to treat Ron Paul in the way a business treats the firing of a top executive.

As the Welches note: “In business, firing someone incorrectly is a disaster that can haunt you for years. Same in politics.”

The Welches go on to urge accommodating Ron Paul with whatever he wants, such as a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention.

It is a conceit of businesspeople that government and politics are just like business, that business management strategies can be applied and that such strategies will lead to success.

This is not typically true. If you are interested in this line of thought, we dealt with this dynamic in a piece the Pundit wrote for The Weekly Standard, published under the title Ron Paul – and the ‘Pink Slip’.

In your Pundit 1/4/12 article, "Auditing and Food Safety," the word "transparency" is used to refer to the rapid communication of producer audit failures, low scores, and comments, to the buyer.

Shouldn't the word "transparency" also include the rationale behind the components of the audit itself? If it is limited to communication of audit results, then this suggests that the audit is entirely a verification tool: the audit says this is what you should do, or the producer says this is what I'm doing, and the purpose of the audit is to make sure the producer is doing what the audit says, or what the producer says, should be done. What is the basis for inclusion of the item being verified? In other words, what constitutes adequate validation of the effectiveness of the procedure?

The answer one most often hears is that it must be "science-based." The criteria for being science-based can range from what a recognized scientist says is true, to a statistical risk analysis, which can get terribly complicated, and since few of us are statisticians, may tend to loop back to what the recognized scientist says. Or, more commonly, to what is traditionally done, with the assumption that if it has been done in the past, it must make sense.

Bob raises a very good point. Very often, people require audits because they want things safe, because they wish to mitigate liability and because it may be required by law, regulation or clientele. Very frequently, they really don’t know what is being audited or why. They just know they need an audit.

Audit-standard developers and auditors themselves sometimes feel the need to justify their product by producing large and impressive checklists and reports, without much evidence that these individual items have much efficacy in preventing foodborne illness.

Harmonization efforts often resolve differences by simply doing more. So if audit-standard developer Smith thinks Question A is vital, and audit-standard developer Jones thinks that doesn’t matter, but Question B is essential, the resolution is often to ask both A and B and thus harmonize the standard.

The temptation is also always there to audit those things that are easy to audit and ignore those things that may be more important but are difficult or impossible to audit.

As Bob implies, the notion that every question asked on an audit is “science-based” is a bit of a stretch. There are very few controlled studies that have ever been done, and our knowledge of pathogens and their behavior is very limited, so the notion that “science” compels a 25-foot buffer zone and not a 20-foot or 30-foot buffer zone is a very hard case to make.

Of course, following the spinach crisis of 2006, there was a conscious decision to not allow the limitations of knowledge be an excuse for inaction. The thought was that the status quo was unacceptable and so we would, as an industry, have to do the best we could to improve food safety even while launching initiatives such as the Center for Produce Safety to improve the science and increase our knowledge.

Still, audits are burdensome, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea for audit-standard developers to have to publish a justification next to each question or line item. Why is this here? What will this prove? How will it enhance food safety?

The Rocky Ford cantaloupe outbreak led many to learn that audits are typically not done to determine if every possible thing that can enhance food safety has been done or even to ascertain if a facility is world-class. Audits are typically done just to confirm that some facility operates to industry standards, although the definitions here can be slippery

Making someone explain how those standards make food safer isn’t the worst idea one could proffer.

Many thanks to Bob Sanderson of Jonathan’s Sprouts for contributing to the industry discussion on this important issue.